The KPFA Local Station Board election
model is a "Proportional
Representation" voting system.
Proportional representation is a voting
system used in most democracies around
the world to insure that an elected
multi-seat body actually represents the
diversity of views of the voting
pool, rather than a "winner-take-all"
system or a two party system where
many of the voters are unrepresented.
The KPFA model uses the "Single
Transferrable Voting" method, also sometimes called "Choice" voting. You
can read in depth about this voting system at The Center for Voting and
Democracy web page at http://www.fairvote.org/

This is different from the usual "at large" elections we have in this
country, where 51% of the voters can control ALL the seats on a city
council, for instance, leaving 49% of the voters unrepresented.

Using political parties as an example, if 15% of the voters vote Green, 20%
vote Labor, 15% vote Libertarian, 5% vote Peace & Freedom, 20% vote
Republican, 20% vote Democrat, and 5% vote American Independent, then the
seats on the council would be distributed in those percentages among
candidates from those parties.

Of course, in our Local Board elections, we do not have "parties", we have
individual candidates. However, it is possible that voters might choose to
vote for candidates based upon their racial or ethnic heritage or their
primary political or cultural interests (such as gay rights or
environmental issues or peace activism). In that event, the seats would be
filled in proportion to the voters' identification of their interests.

In addition, under the KPFA model, we require that a minimum of 50% of the
seats be filled by people of color and 50% be filled by women (a woman of
color is counted in both categories). If those minimums are not met, then
we replace the lowest vote-getters who are not people of color or women
with the highest vote-getters who are people of color or women in order to
fulfill our 50% minimum requirements -- provided that anyone seated must
receive at least 1/3rd the minimum number of votes ordinarily needed to be
elected, and of course also provided that there are candidates of color or
women to fill those seats

We have held two KPFA Local Board elections using this voting system and it
has been successful. In the first election, one man of color was seated
who would not have been seated without the minimum diversity requirements
-- and he has for two years brought great thoughtfulness to our LAB. In
the second election, every person of color who ran was elected without the
necessity of applying the diversity minimums. However -- and this may be a
problem for some or all LABs in the future, regardless of voting method --
we did NOT have enough candidates of color to fill our minimum diversity
requirements. This is an outreach and recruitment problem, not a problem
with the voting system itself. Many, many people tell us they are too busy
with other work to do the job well, so they don't want to run.

When I say that the KPFA Local Board elections have been "successful", I
mean that they have resulted in a diverse LAB in many ways -- LAB members
come from all around our large signal area, with many cultural and
political interests, and from many different cultural/ethnic/racial
heritages -- e.g., we have immigrants from Palestine, Puerto Rico & Uganda,
as well as people with Latino, African and Indigenous heritages. (We do
not currently have anyone of Asian heritage on our LAB -- the only Asian
candidate in the last election withdrew due to a back injury, or he would
have been seated.) We also have a labor organizer, some musicians,
advocates for immigrants' rights, prisoners' rights, health care rights, a
CPA/peace activist, a youth advocate, a gay activist, an artist, at least
one writer, peace activists ... and so on, quite a diverse group of people.

One point that should be emphasized about proportional representation
voting is that it allows self-determination among voting blocks -- so if
a large enough number of voters of Asian heritage, for example, choose to
vote for an Asian candidate, then they can elect the Asian candidate of
their own choosing. What is large enough? It depends on the number of
seats to be filled. The more seats there are to be filled, the smaller the
percentage of the vote needed to gain a seat. So, if 1 seat is open, then
1/2 +1 of the votes are needed; if 2 seats are open then 1/3 +1 of the
votes are needed; if 10 seats are open the 1/11 + 1 of the votes are needed
... and so on.

To give concrete examples -- if 20% of the eligible voters actually vote in
the upcoming local board elections, and there are 18 seats available for
listener-members to elect (as there would be under the KPFA model with a
24-person Local Board where 1/4 of the seats are elected by the station
staff) --

At WPFW -- where there are about 6,000 subscribers, that would be about
1,200 voters and it would take 1/19 + 1 of those votes to be elected, or 64
votes.

At KPFT -- where there are about 10,000 subscribers, that would be about
2,000 voters and it would take 1/19 + 1 of those votes to be elected, or
106 votes.

At WBAI & KPFK -- where there are about 18,000 subscribers, that would be
about 3,600 voters and it would take 1/19 + 1 of those votes to be elected,
or 190 votes.

At KPFA -- where there are about 25,000 subscribers, that would be about
5,000 voters and it would take 1/19 + 1 of those votes to be elected, or
264 votes.

An important feature of the single transferrable vote proportional
representation system is that no vote is wasted. If a voter's first
choice is eliminated, then his/her vote is transferred to his/her second
choice, or if a voter's first choice is elected with excess votes, then the
excess votes are transferred (on a pro-rata basis) to each voter's second
choice. So almost everyone will end up with either their first, second, or
third choice candidate elected, and no one will be unrepresented on the board.

KEYS TO SUCCESS: OUTREACH, OUTREACH, OUTREACH

Surprisingly, given the great amount of energy that "Pacifica Activists"
have devoted to this issue, recruiting candidates to run for election is
NOT easy. Many people are just too busy and don't feel they can give
enough time to do the job well. Also, at KPFA, during our last two
election cycles we did NOT have carts on the air encouraging people to run
and giving them information about who to contact about running. (Our
station staff and management was NOT enthusiastic about the LAB elections
and didn't give us much help.) It will be VERY IMPORTANT for all stations
to run frequent carts -- at all times of day -- announcing that people
interested in serving should contact the elections coordinator, announcing
public meetings where candidates can gather nominations signatures, and so
on. Under the KPFA model, 15 signatures from listener-subscribers are
needed to nominate a candidate. (Under the "hybrid" constituency model 50
signatures are needed from a candidate's own constituency group -- that
looks like a VERY large hurdle for most constituency candidates and could
result in no candidates or very few who qualify.)

On Air Announcements
Public events throughout the signal area where candidates can gather
nominating signatures
Contacting good people you know and "twisting their arms" to persuade them
to run
All will be needed to field a diverse group of candidates ... and people
should start recruiting candidates NOW.

Giving the Local Boards Real Power --
Another problem in recruiting candidates for the past two KPFA Local Board
elections was that the LAB had NO POWER ... many people felt it wasn't
worth the time and effort to run for an "advisory" board that had no
ability to affect station policies or programming at all. Under the new
bylaws we hope that the Local Station Boards will be much more important in
station oversight & policy making -- and that the station managers will be
accountable to the local boards and not just the Executive Director (or
national board). I hope it will help to persuade people to run if they
know that their service on the local board can really make a difference.

Convincing People that it is Important to Run --
Many activists and political people are so busy with their other activities
that they think "someone else" will do it. Or they don't think a radio
station is as important as whatever other political/community work they are
doing. They take the station for granted. But they should NOT take the
station or the Pacifica network for granted. First of all, we nearly lost
it to a cabal that wanted to take it into the mainstream and make Pacifica
pretty worthless to all the causes we are fighting for. Secondly,
ALTERNATIVE MEDIA is essential if any of our causes are to succeed. I'm
probably preaching to the choir in writing this ... we all know that the
mainstream media does not cover our issues or covers them in the corporate
interests, not our interests. But it is surprising how much difficulty
there is in persuading people who have NOT been involved in the Pacifica
fight, that Pacifica Radio needs them if Pacifica is going to remain free
and strong. (The unruly acrimony among many Pacifica activists also
discourages some people from running, because a lot of time is wasted on it
and it is quite unpleasant.)

WHY DOES THE KPFA MODEL HAVE MINIMUM DIVERSITY REQUIREMENTS FOR WOMEN AND
PEOPLE OF COLOR?

Some people ask why we don't just "let the voters decide" who gets elected
without the minimum 50% requirements for women and people of color? The
answer is that we made a value judgment that people of color or women or
both -- for many historical and societal reasons -- are underrepresented on
almost every decision making body of every organization we know in this
country, and that the decisions those bodies make suffer and are poorer as
a result. Regardless of the number of women or people of color living in
our station areas, or among our listeners or subscribers, or heard on our
air -- we wanted to make absolutely certain that no Pacifica governing body
would ever be dominated by white people or by men. Some people think
that's "unfair" or "anti-democratic", we do not. We think it is both
"fair" and "democratic" to ensure that those who have historically been
oppressed and unheard be a major part of the decision-making at Pacifica
which is, after all, dedicated to understanding the causes of conflicts and
peace with justice.

Why didn't we break our diversity requirements down further into
percentages for various ethnic or oppressed groups? I think the main
reason we didn't is because most of us felt that the "democratic process"
would take care of it, given the 50% requirements, and that we do believe
in a political process where various groups and interests can organize and
build coalitions and gain support for their positions. Proportional
representation voting allows that to happen. In addition, I think many of
us felt that all of us are more multi-dimensional than our racial/ethnic
heritage or any particular political cause. As we work to bridge our
differences and build understanding and working coalitions, many of us felt
that breaking people down into categories -- Asians, Latinos, African
Heritage, Middle Eastern, Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender, Prisoners,
Immigrants, Youth, Artists, Peace Activists -- would ultimately reinforce
our divisions and make it more difficult for us to support one another in
our struggles. We have seen that kind of divisiveness along racial lines
playing itself out at KPFK and WBAI recently, and it appears destructive of
what we stand for and are working to achieve at Pacifica. Others, of
course, differ with this view, and are forcefully arguing their case that
guaranteeing seats for certain defined constituencies is necessary. We
simply disagree, although I think we seek the same end result -- very
diverse boards representative of a broad range of views. The other reason
we didn't break our categories down further under the KPFA model is the
complexity of running such an election (and nominations procedures) would
make it more difficult for the voters and more difficult to hold successful
elections. Quite frankly, I think a lot of people who receive ballots with
numerous constituency seats to vote for, in addition to at-large seats,
will be so confused or perhaps turned off that they will not bother to vote
-- that's the opposite of the result we all want.

Both the KPFA elections model and the "Hybrid" constituency model are
posted at www.wbai.net